Jessica Standiford

EPS 513
12/6/13
Final Paper


I. Knowledge Gained From Interim Assessment

I am a resident teacher in a Kindergarten classroom. The majority of the
assessments we give in my class are one-on-one, given to the student directly by the
teacher. This is a time-consuming process, but it provides the most reliable and valid
information possible for each child. The assessment I chose to analyze was our Quarter
1 Literacy Assessment. By the end of the first quarter of the school year,
Kindergarteners should be able to identify all letter names and letter sounds. Because
of this expectation, our Literacy Assessment is identifying letters and letter sounds.
During this assessment, students are given a list of letters, they verbally read the list by
letter name, and then say each letter sound. It was administered in my classroom
during the week of October 28
th
, 2013, right before the end of Quarter 1. They were
also given a similar one-on-one assessment for math at this time, assessing their ability
to identify and write numbers, number concept, and number counting. This literacy
assessment also had similar tasks as the Pre-Reading STEP assessment that each
student was given at the beginning of the year. This type of assessment is not
something that is completely new to them. They are also very used to being pulled to
work with a teacher one-on-one for differentiated lessons or assessment.
Looking at the Literacy Assessment Data chart below, it was determined that 16
students knew all of their letters and sounds. You can see that there were 9 students
that knew 16-25 letters, and 2 students who could identify 15 letters or less. As for
letter sounds, 6 students could identify 16-25 sounds, and 5 students identified less
than 15 sounds in all. These results can be trusted to be reliable because of the intimate
nature of the assessment administration. Since the student is working one-on-one with
the teacher, it is much easier to make sure the student understands the assessment and
it is administered correctly. This assessment also provides valid results since the
teacher is working directly with the student. It is not administered by a computer or a
proctor as a whole-group, such as the MAP assessment. This allows for the least
amount of confusion and the most accurate results. The only shortcoming of this data is
that it does not measure what more students can do as far as their literacy skills. The
assessment is based directly around the Common Core standards for Literacy
foundational skills at this point in Kindergarten. This leaves us with a lack of
knowledge of what more the 16 students who scored perfectly can do. All of these
students have higher literacy skills than simply being able to identify letters and letter
sounds, but this assessment does not show that data.

Figure 1: Summary of Quarter 1 Literacy Assessment Results
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-15 16-25 26
#

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

# Letter/Sounds Correct
Literacy Assessment Data
Letters
Sounds
II. Knowledge Gained Through Observation
Along with interim assessments, so much valuable knowledge is gained through
observation. I could have accurately guessed which of my students knew all of their
letters and sounds at the end of Q1 simply through my observation of their work
throughout the year. I already knew which students would know fewer than 15 letters
and sounds. The literacy assessment is a formal tool to confirm my knowledge of my
students, as well as for data to track the childs progress throughout the year.
My observation of the students in my classroom has clearly shown me the
importance of prior learning in those early childhood years. Students enter
Kindergarten with a wide range of skills and abilities. A few of my students came into
my class knowing all of their letters and letter sounds at the beginning of the year.
Some of these students could already read. On the other end of the spectrum, I had
students who came into Kindergarten knowing zero letters or letter sounds. This prior
learning is incredibly predictive of their success in school. It is clear which of my
students had any prior preschool experience. It is also clear who had not been exposed
to any prior learning, including being read to at home. It is our job in Kindergarten to
catch these kids up to the kids that have been exposed to these concepts for years.
On top of prior knowledge, my observation has shown me the impact of a childs
attitude on their learning. I have one student who came into Kindergarten knowing 6
letters and no letter sounds. She was far behind the majority of her classmates, but she
would walk into school everyday with a big smile on her face, genuinely excited to be
there. It was obvious that she enjoys school and wants to learn. This child has made
significant growth within the first quarter. My students that have very negative
attitudes about school have shown little growth this year. They rarely do their
homework or the outside reading required at home. This realization has shown me the
importance of truly knowing your students and knowing what motivates them.
Observation of their learning styles and what makes them want to learn allows a
teacher to provide most effective instruction.
Observation of my students has also allowed me to gain much more information
than the skill assessed in the Q1 literacy assessment. The assessment informed me that
16 of my students knew all of their letters and sounds, but did not offer more
information about what else these students knew. For example, I know from
observation that a few of my students are fluent readers. This assessment does not
provide this information; it only assesses their letter/sound recognition. However,
through my observation of these students, I can still gain this information, even though
it is not a skill that must be assessed at this time in the school year.
III. Knowledge Synthesis

A combination of the formal Quarter 1 Literacy Assessment as well as my
observation has allowed me to determine, with confidence, the varying literacy
abilities of each and every one of my students. In the book, Driven by Data, by Paul
Bambrick-Santoyo, the author explains standards are not sufficient to drive teaching
to appropriate rigor. (Bambrick-Santoyo 12). In regards to assessment, to me this
means that even though the assessment is based off of the appropriate standards, this
does not mean teaching should be only based off of these standards if they are not
developmentally appropriate for each student. Looking at data gained from the interim
literacy assessment and through observation in regards to students letter/sound
knowledge, I know that 16 of my students know all of their letters and sounds. Out of
this group, I have 3 students who are in an advanced word study group focusing on
long vowels. The remaining 13 of these students are moving from focusing on CVC
words to blends and digraphs. There are 6 students who know 16-25 letters or sounds.
These students are now working on building CVC words, as well as reviewing all letters
and sounds each day. The group of 3 students who know 16-26 letter names but less
than 15 sounds are focusing on mastering those remaining letters/sounds during small
group intervention at this time. The remaining 2 students who know less than 15
letters and less than 15 sounds are pulled each day for individualized PALS literacy
intervention. Going back to Bambrick-Santoyos quote, just because the standard says
each student should have mastered all letters and sounds at the end of Quarter 1 does
not mean all students are on this level. A teacher still must support low students and
enrich their teaching for high students. This interim literacy assessment allowed us to
create differentiated word study groups for each child based upon their abilities in
word study. The differentiated word study groups that were created based off of the
results of this assessment show the ride range of abilities in my classroom, as well as
our ability to provide instruction based off of assessment data.
IV. Implications For Formative Assessment

To formally assess students who have not yet scored 100% on this assessment,
they will be given this letter/sound literacy assessment again at the end of Quarter 2 to
ensure they have mastered these concepts. The two students who know less than 15
letters are also receiving PALS one-on-one intervention everyday, which includes an
assessment log of student progress that is completed each day during the lesson. For
the students that have already mastered their letters and sounds, this assessment will
not be administered again at the end of the 2
nd
quarter. Instead, they will be tested on
the progress they have made in their individual word study groups. For example, the
CVC words group would be tested on their knowledge of short-vowel sounds, and
putting words together using initial consonant, middle vowel, and final consonant
sounds. Students in the Digraphs and Blends word study group would be tested on
their ability to spell words that contain these letter combinations correctly at the end
of the quarter. Students are also assessed daily in their word study groups through a
worksheet or sort. Each day, our teaching team reviews the work done by their word
study groups. If I notice a student has made a few minor errors, I will circle their
mistakes and ask students to correct them during breakfast the next morning. If the
student has made numerous mistakes and it is clear they are not grasping the concept,
we will take time to review the concept individually with that student, or make them a
video to review on their iPad. This daily check allows for constant check for
understanding and progress monitoring of their literacy development in word study.
The most important thing to remember when considering this letter and letter
sound interim literacy assessment is that it cannot be the only tool to measure student
progress. This assessment is tied to the standards and expectations for
Kindergarteners at this time, but it may not be a useful source of information for all
students in my class. For my two students who know less than half of their letters and
letter sounds, this assessment could be used in the future to show their progress. It is
also a useful piece of data to use to group these students and provide appropriate
instruction. However, for the 16 students who knew all of their letters and sounds, this
assessment could not be used to monitor their progress in the future since they have
already reached the point of mastery. Because of this, we must not only design
assessments based off of current expectations and standards, assessments must be
designed to clearly show growth in each student, no matter how low or high level they
may be.

Long-Vowels Blends, Digraphs CVC Words Letter/Sound ID PALS Intervention
Nyla Micah Jaden Coreana Durell
Abbas Deante Jaylin Nyerra Shanya
Rizal Giya Timara Kobe
Kosi Lania Durrell
Lyla April Shanya
Korey Janayla
Kamari
Kaden
Latrell
Juelz
Tavion
Jamar
Nalani
Figure 2: Word Study Groups Based on Assessment & Observation
*Groups were formed directly from interim assessment data as well as teacher
observation and knowledge of student prior learning.









Works Cited
1. Bambrick-Santoyo, Paul. Driven by Data: A Practical Guide to Improve Instruction. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.